-- let my say i believe that senate bill include many painful lessons learned from the past. as you know the 1986 law had a number of issue. for one thing the legalization program didn't cover everyone. there remain a large undocumented population after wards. it didn't necked change to legal immigration to address our future needs. both of these omissions, i think, contributed to the growth of the undocumented population since that time. and i think, third, clearly it's enforcement measures aren't strong enough. as i know in my written testimony, the enforcement system we have in place is several order of magnitude stronger than anything in place or even contemplated in the 1986 act. by combining illegalization process that does lead to citizenship with a modern

immigration system and real accountability for employers, we will have imgrants that are here illegally. those hired in the future will be here legally. so our goals are the same. that's to have an immigration system that work and reflects our values as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws. and my favorite section from the bible is that the -- i say blessed are the peacemakers. hopefully we can find peace in the common goals around immigration reform. >> mr. chairman, may have for you to exercise discretion and ask my question. i got so involved, dr. flemming with the other witnesses i meant to ask you a question. first of all, welcome. i'm glad you're here. i know, you care deeply about the people you come in contact with. i believe that justice, fairness, and compassion are not incompatible with the rule of law. i think it enhances our ability

to demon separate justice, fairness, and compassion when we operate within a legal framework. that's what we're trying to go here. at least i believe that. the provision in the bill that would allow someone that committed multiple offenses of domestic violence of drunk driving, and child abuse it draw the line at two. you can do it twice and you are still eligible. if you do it three time or commit a felony you're not. does that cause you any concern in term of the welfare of the victim of that drunk driving? the domestic violence, or child abuse? >> thank you, senator cornyn. it's a great question. i know, a lot of people will ask the same question. it causes me concern. what we said throughout the conversation is that we are

advocating for legal status and/or citizenship to those who qualify. i don't believe that everyone will qualify or should qualify. i feel woefully inadequate to express what it should be. i recognize that's an important issue. i would be uncomfortable with multiple offenses and felonies. i think there has been to be a line to where we're allowing those who are going to be conductive tax paying contributing to the community, great neighbors and who are by lack of attention or intention causes harm. there has to be a line, certainly. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i turn to my question, i want to say i'm glad to see you here. dr. flemming, a lot of -- i know who support immigration reform do so out of see it as an issue

of faith. at this point, mr. chairman, i would like to enter in to the record a list of three dozen tsh actually three dozen plus one minnesota faith groups that support immigration reform. if you look through the list you will see lutheran and muslim and catholics and jews, episcopal, methodist, you name it. thank you. a lot of minnesota people adopt just think it was a smart thing to do. they think this is the right -- morally right thing to do. mrs. lichter, the bill we are debating will make e verify mandatory for all employers. fortunately the last independent audit of the system revealed it wrongly we are jected the legal -- rejected the legal worker about one out of every one out

of 10 times. it sound that time. it wouldn't be acceptable for you, your credit card errors or starting your car. i'm wondering how it affects smawz. a business that doesn't have a big hr or human resources person maybe the accountant may man the front desk, and may be the spouse of the small businesser owner. in february, the america immigration lawyers' association issued a press release saying should, quote, protect the interest of small businesses and provide mechanisms to suspend the roll out of the employment vertification program if patterns of errors develop.

can you tell us why it made the recommendation and continues to standby them. >> senator, thank you. we don't standby the recommendation. it's because as you note, this is not an issue just for the employer. it's for the entire work force. it could be an issue for that person who is applying for a job and simply because the paperwork doesn't clear. you have gone to the next individual and now that individual is out there hidden in the streets looking for another job. it does sound like a small percentage. we are talking about tens of thousands of people who are wrongly tentatively nonconfirmed. to not go forward with employment. in terms what the best metric would be, i think we have a good chance to look at slowing this down potentially to see if there are ways to evaluate whether we

are having a high number of errors. there needs to be some method for reporting and correcting those. and let's not lose sight of the fact that this sort of additional regulation facing small business has a disproportionate effect. it lily cost a small business twice or nearly three times as it does for a larger corporation to institute e verify. >> thank you. in 2007 they released a powerful study on the impact of immigration enforcement action on children. your study reviewled that immigration raids left children abandoned without anyone to care for them. let me quote the study description of the aftermath of two raids. quote, in one case youth spent several day alone because both parents arrested in the raid.

in one household three kids were left to defend for themselves after both parents detained. neighbors provided occasional supervision. people only foundous because the youth showed up at food banks to ask for assistance. another child spent months in the care of pastor at the local church where his parents worshiped. there are case like this all across the country. in 2006 raid in minnesota, a second grader came home from school to find the mother and father missing. and the 2-year-old brother alone. for the next week, the child stayed home from school to take care of his brother. after 2008 raid in postville, iowa a local newspaper reporter children went as long as 72 hours without seeing their parents. thankfully the days of massive

immigration raids 0 over. over 200,000 parents of citizens children were deported. i have a bill, mrs. . during immigration enforcement action and during the detention of their parents. mrs. -- i do. i appreciate you highlighting the report which i think was eye opening for many people. i think when you hear about the impact of the deportation and as a result of our broken immigration system, we're not talking about individuals, we're not just talking about families. we are talking about communities that are devastated by this broken system. but the fact i couldn't even

articulate for you the pain and the suffering that has occurred from the country as a result of the raids and that continues to exist as long as we have these kinds of deportations in place is really for me not consistent with the value that we have as american in this country. there's a better way for us to do it. this bill, this comprise offers us a path to get to that kind of a more rational and humane resolution on this. i appreciate you highlighting that there is real -- these are not just statistics we're talking about. there are families devastated, communities that have been devastated, and to their credit, many people in the faith based community across the board have stepped in to fill in where with we thought understand there are clot really collateral costs to be made in this. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i thank each of the witnesses for joining us today. i -- as we started this discussion, i was reminded of the words of steven cubby, a prominent utah author of a book. he used to tell people to think win-win. it was followed by a michael scott on "officer" who told the employees to, i, win, win, win. i hope question get to that point. i think that is the point of this discussion is how we can find a way to make a difficult situation better. and i hope that through this legislation or some modified form of it, we can get to a point where we improve our legal immigration system. we're a nation of imgrants, we always have been. i hope and pray we will be.

we have to have a door where immigrants can be welcome to the country under the term of the law. there's a lot in this bill to be praised in this regard. there are some things that can concern me. i would like to discuss couple of those with mr. kobach for a moment. a couple of things you mentioned have got, my attention. one of them dealing with your assertion that the department of homeland security may have shaping some of the removal numbers. what can you speak more of the suspect activity of sort of changing, i think you said they're changing dpe nominator such that the overall ratio can be manipulated. two points. one, you are putting them in a impossible position. calculate 90% if you are at 90% success. you never know the denominator. we miss them and therefore we

probably didn't have surveillance of them. it's almost impossible. my second point to that was if you're going force them to come up with the number, this effectivenesses ratio, then should we trust them to to so? i would say based on the reporting of the last two years, there is serious reason to consider perhaps not. and that is we have been told repeatedly in the last two years that fiscal year 2012 saw a record number 410,000 approximately of removals from the united states. well, it turns out that 86,000 of the number we learned because of evidence disclosed, 86,000 fall under the program. that these are aliens who previously would have been -- they are amp apprehended at the wroap. they would have called a voluntary return. voluntary returns were never count as removal. since 2011, what they have been doing is faking the individuals and for a good reason. let's traps port them a few

hundred mile and return them there so they have a harder time reconnecting. we're going count that as a removal. i.c.e. touched the alien for a few hours or 24 hours during the process of helping the transport. so now we have basically voluntary returns with a transit in place being counted as removal. it inflates the statistics to 410,000. removal is way down. they have seen a massive decrease in removal. so part of the problem is not necessarily that you shouldn't be able to count the figure. those are resulting from the effort of the dhs. it's the fact that it was a change compared to prior -- those never would have been counted before. if one way to look tat is calculate all of the alien turn around, removal, and everything. look at that, i.c.e. and border patrol imind over the past few

years. you see a decrease. now some will say that decrease is because fewer people attempting to come inspect the point being the numbers being manipulated in misleading manner. the president himself used the word misleading when he talked to a group of hispanic reporter. he said it's misleading it's not like old removal. my point if you have met rick and trigger pick something that is a hard in disputable number. miles of fence constructed, or specific numbers as opposed to these very fussy percent acts and successful or factor. >> you think it's possible to identify it. if you improve the bill you wouldn't go with something that is less subjective. >> absolute my. but there aren't that many things -- one is miles of fence. that is something that is verifiable. when you start talking about

operational control. it's fussy factors it's impossible to define. >> do they call those voluntary removal. >> voluntary return. >> affecting the people of subject returns would not think of it -- [inaudible] >> they were told return or else. but voluntary might be a misnomer. >> perhaps in a subsequent round we can get back to the casual sporadic, regular, or intermittent standard. my time is expired for now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking broad bipartisan group of eight senators who worked so hard and over many months. obviously all the different groups and individuals who brought toward the story and view to help shape the bill. i think that this bill is a

vital is an important first step toward moving our country away from our current, broken, outdated and many ways unequal and unjust system to one that will work and work in a way that comports with american values. there are many important aspect of the bill to support that are encouraging. the resolution of the concerns of dreamers earned path to citizenship dramatically reducing backlog. and the refew agree seeking asylum. coming with a system that more successfully keeps highly talented individuals who have been educated in the country to contribute to our economy. like others who spoke before me, i think there's work to be done additional due process protectionser ensuring that all families including lgbt families e squallly valued. investing in education to address the skills gap. i think there's a number of areas we can work on together.

i appreciate chairman leahy's commitment to have an open and transparent process and the length at which the panel has testified today. if i might, first, thank you for your story. your testimony. this is the second time i've heard you testify in the committee. it's a reminder of the individual stories that make the broad fabric of the concerns we're dealing with, mrs. lichter, i'm interested in hearing you speak specifically to the need for appointed counsel or expanded legal orientation program. i was stuck in a previous hearing. more than 80 percent of detainees are unrepresented in any way even if they are children, mentally incompetent, and frankly the absence of counsel for the overwhelming majority of noncitizen who are too poor or vulnerable to get them. it bogs the system down and makes it harder for immigration judges to do their job. i would be interested to speak concretely to your experience of representing individual with long past minor criminal

offenses deemed aggravated felony for the limited purpose. if you can speak to both. >> senator koontz, thank you. you hit upon probably the dirtiest secret of our immigration proceedings which is that this is one of the most complicated areas of law. i think country practice. it's a forum in which willingly throw people that don't have the san franciscoed legal background. they might not speak english. most of them, as you noted, detained cases don't have legal counsel. the excision ens of legal or jenation programs where we advise people as to in general very broad terms what their facing, why, for example they are detained or what avenue for release there have been have been extremely successful not only in promoting what would be i think important to many interest of justice and fair

administration immigration laws. there's an efficiency here as well. if question explain to an individual because the lack of ties to the united or history, they do simply do not have any prfl in front of the immigration court. it can be moved on quickly. the legal or orientation programs have been responsible for a significant amount of savings in terms of case processing in general. it's clear that also in this context that we have individuals coming to the removal proceedings only because they have old minor crimes. i think most people think it sounds pad. what it means in immigration is something else. it can involve something for which the individual never spent a day in jail. where there was not actually

even any physical harm. it could be something twenty, thirty, forty years old. i had people facing removal proceedings for crimes that long in the past. unfortunately the system we have currently does not provide almost any path out of removal for those individuals. but for the very, very extreme cases where they might be facing persecution if they were returned home. >> thank you, mrs. lichter. you have spokenning spokenning with marguia. the earned path to citizenship and the possible benefit to our economy. having 11 million people be able to fully participate our economy. if you would talk about that and about this bill is a compromise. can you help us understand what would happen on the fronts if the hurdle to earn legal status are too high and for a significant number of the currently here undocumented status. what are the consequences? >> sure.

and i'll , you know, just reintegrate the. on friday the committee heard there would be an overall if net gain to our by moving forward with a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the tune of 1.5 trillion over a decade. we know that in addition that there would be billions added in term of earned wages by many. we see this as a net gain. i will tell you that as we look at the legalization program right now and again, we see the path to citizenship and legalization that has been put forward there. i think for us, the fact we can build on that as a way to move forward is really important because it's essential. but what i mentioned earlier is that we have some questions about the length and, again, the costliness of the high cost, perhapses with the fees and provisions there. i think what we want to make sure we're doing is not

undermining our very goal of achieving legalization and citizenship by creating some of these barriers which could be the length of time or the fee that will be several fees. and in fact, we know immigrants want to learn english. if we are going have the standard for them to learn english. we need to make sure the supports are there for them to be able to have access to english classes and the citizenship classes. which in the past has been a problem. we are encouraged by what we see here. all of those pieces aren't in place and if there's not attention to the potentially high cost and the length of time, i think we could undermine our very goal of seeing that citizenship become a reality. >> thank you, mrs. marguia. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to first join in thanking

senator schumer and others who have participated in the group of eight. i hesitate to call them a gang, that has produced such a very promising and important and really historic consensus solution to a topic, i think, is probably the most important among the most important we face today in the united. and will determine the america of our children and grandchildren. and i will be very proud to vote for immigration reform. i don't know that it will be exactly the bill that has been proposed. and i want to thank this panel and others that have been here before and will will be here after for making suggestions that they do. i think he can be a better america, juster, freer, and more productive if we bring the 11 million people out of the shadows. and dot background checks. we may figure out better ways to

do them. and i'm a law enforcement guy. i believe that background checks can always be improved. those become checks will makes safer, and enlisting and recruiting those 11 million people in a path to earned citizenship, i think will be good for them and. i don't know, mr. secretary kobach whether you have spent a lot of time with the dreamers, but i sort of think the dreamers are ground zero. they are the basic who could be against giving these people citizenship? i spent a lot of time with them, i have come to know them, i try to go to the floor where i -- whenever i can with pictures of them and their sorry -- stories so people understand who they are. let me begin, mr. kobach,

secretary kobach by asking what is your position on people who are born here who have parents here illegally. should they be u.s. citizens? >> well, under current federal law and under current practice with long practice of the executive branch had for many administrations they are treated adds u.s. citizens. >> i take it you would oppose the policy. >> there have ban number of bill intros deuced in congress, some i think have some merit that would say, for example, i'm remembering the deal that would say if a person is born in at least one of his parents is a green card holder or a u.s. citizens, then that would be truer to the intent of the with the writers of the xivth amendment.

>> don't you dwsh in your opposition to dreamers having eventually expedited path to citizenship have to oppose anybody who is born here who have parents who are here ill leally being denied citizenship and having to go to the back -- they are no different in in term of their intent, their basic circumstances than someone who is brought here by their parents without any choice on their part. >> i don't think you have to. one necessarily doesn't apply to the others. there are a lot of reasons in the law why the current way we define natural born citizenship is simple and easy. we can know easy based on the place of their birth. there are balances on both sides of the question. i'm saying that proposals in congress to, you know, define that more narrowly would have access to the instant natural born citizenship. they may be more consistent with

the framers of the xivth amendment. they are also other calls legally. but, you know, . >> here too complex. they are brought here. >> you have the problem of determining skip citizenship is more difficult than if you have to obtain other verifications. >> let me suggest to you because my time will shortly expire that i think the benefits of heading definition that serve the national interest of having those people who are brought here without any choice of their own much like they're born here without choosing to be are very, very much the same. and the dreamers who are contributing to this country or in school or serving in the military in, if anything, in term of equity in better position to deserve that treatment of given a path

expedited citizenship. >> one response. past included an upper age limit. if you get -- closer you get to somebody a minor. they are not responsible for the actions. i think we agree. the person who has a age limit. a person who is 40 says he's a dreamer. >> with an age limit you oppose? >> no i i would oppose. it makes it less tolerable the more open-ended. i think, you know, people in just a minute or so left in the hearing. you can see the rest of it at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is able to gavel in. they will take up the judicial nomination of kelly. they'll consider the nomination of sill via. both of those will gets votes at about noon eastern today.

lawmakers will return to work on an online sales tax bill. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, our heavenly father, who of your great mercy have promised to supply all our needs, confirm and strengthen us in all goodness and bring us into the joy of abundant living. today, give our senators the gifts of wisdom and understanding, of knowledge and judgment, so that those held captive will enjoy again the freedom and the peace of your providential love.

help us to show our gratitude to you with words and actions of affirmation. tune our minds to the frequency of your spirit, as we dedicate this day to serve you. and, lord, we ask you to bless our capitol police, who risk their lives for freedom each day. we pray in your gracious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 24, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid:, i appreciate the chaplain's prayer, but i especially want to recognize the last line or two of his prayer today where he indicated that he wanted a special blessing on the capitol police.

i'm happy that the sergeant at arse was here when the -- the sergeant-at-arms was here when the prayer was being given, because the chairperson i chapl. every day the capitol police protect us -- that is, senators and staff, but also the millions of visit visitors who come in ts massive complex every year. we see them standing there at guard watching the doors, and we need to do that because just a few years ago we had some madman crash through the house side and kill two police officers. we've seen that things have gotten more difficult since then. we have people standing with automatic weapons. we have bomb squads. we have these dogs that do -- work with us so well. we have people who are on bicycles.

but i -- with the appropriations process coming soon, i hope, we have to make sure that we supply the capitol police with the tools and materials and equipment they need to continue doing their job. is it inconvenient for people coming here and for us, on occasion? the answer is "yes." but they're doing that for you for the people that come to this building. so once g.n.p. i acknowledge the -- so once again i acknowledge the good chaplain and his remarks on behalf of the people that protect us here every day. following leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business until 10:30. republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nominations of jean kelley to be united states circuit judge for the eighth circuit and the nomination of sylvia burwell to be director of the office of management and budget. at noon there will up to three roll call votes -- confirmation

of kelly and burwell and adoption to proceed to the marketplace fairness act. mr. president, s. 788 is due for its second reading. the presiding officer: clerk will ready the title of the bill. the clerk: s. 78, a bill to suspend the fiscal year 2013 sequester and establish limits on war-related spending. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid:,man, i had a number of meetings yesterday with democratic and republican proponents of the marketplace fairness act. this is a piece of legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by democrats and republicans. the presiding officer, i appreciate his remarks yesterday and on behalf of this

legislation. succinctly, what this legislation would do is level the playing field between john line sellers and brick-and-mortar retailers. mr. president, as everyone know, we've had a lot of problems with the economy, but in nevada we've been hit really hard. we led the nation for 20 years with a vibrant economy. the last four or five years, it has been difficult. we're doing better now, but we're not doing great. and it really, for lack of a better description, i was going to say "break my heart." i'm not sure that's proper, but i feel very, very bad when i drive in reno and las vegas and see these little strip malls with "for lease" signs. they would though not be for lef they had the ability to compete with these online sellers. as indicated yesterday in a umhad of presentations i heard -- this a umin o number of presentations that i heard made,

people will come to these brick-and-mortar stores. they'll find a pair of shoes, a coat they like or whatever else, and they immediately go out of there and order it someplace else and not pay sales tax. the reason i mention this, we could finish this legislation today, on wednesday, and move on to other bipartisan legislation. now, we have a small number of senators who are holding this up, stalling -- mr. president, this has 50 democratic votes, and at least 25 republican vot votes. i know many of my republican colleagues want to attend -- and i think that's appropriate -- i wish i could -- the opening of the bush library in texas. unfortunately, there are senators who are playing procedural games. it's going to prevent that from

happening. there is -- and i don't say this often -- there is no chance they can prevail. we have three states basically holding up this legislation. and for people to talk, you're coercing us to do something. we're coercing those states to do nothing. zero, nothing. we're just trying to make the playing field level. so, mr. president, i want everyone to understand, just a handful of senators are preventing us from doing our work. and we are going to finish this legislation this week. i know this sounds like me crying wolf, but this may be the time the wolf is really coming, because, mr. president, we have a bipartisan bill we have to move to next work period. it's the wrda, water resource development act, supported by one of the most liberal members of this is that the, barbara

boxer, and one of the most conservative members, senator vitter. they've worked out a bill. it's been reported out of the their committee. it is on the calendar right nowes and we're going to move to that. in addition to that, we have another bipartisan bill that's in the wings of coming out. the agriculture bill. and we need to complete those bills next work period because we have to get to immigration. so everyone understand, this is not crying wolf. we are going to finish this bill. i spoke yesterday to senator enzi, who has worked on this bill for 11 years. i spoke to my good friend and certainly mike enzi is my good friend here -- lamar alexander. and they both said we're going

to finish this bill this week. when i have requests from my republican friends and senator durbin to move forward, we're going to move forward on it. we're going to finish this bill. we have a three-week work period next time and we have to jam in that wrda and hopefully the ag bill. so we can move before july 4 and finish the immigration bill, which has been taking up quite a bit of time. we have too much to do when we return from our in-state work period. and i have a lot to do. i have got a conference. i'm going to do some things there with eric cantor. we don't do things very often but we're going to talk about some things that people want us to talk about. i would really like to do that. i.t. not here in washington. -- it's not here in washington. and if i have to put that off, it would be a shame -- for me

and eric cantor. and, and i think the people that are putting on the conference. but if that's what it takers that's what it taifntle it tak. i want to go home. so we're going to finish this bill. mr. president, i'm going to read from one of the world's leading newspapers, an editorial. it says "budget cuts, minus the inconvenience." headline "republicans encourage a sequester affecting the poor, but they're furious about labor delays -- about travel delays." i'm sorry. here's what it says, and i'm not editorializing. i'm just telling what they put in this newspaper editorial today.

"on monday after the sequester cuts forced the f.a.a. if a to begin furloughs for air traffic control he is, delays began to build up at airports around the country. travelers had to wait but nothing delayed republicans from scurrying away from all responsibility. speaker john boehner started using twitter hash tag "obama flight delays. the latest effort in his party's campaign to blame all the pain of sequester on the obama administration." why is president obama unnecessarily delaying your flight? that's a quote from eric cantor, wrote in edge in on twitter. if the president wanted to, republicans said, he could easily cut somewhere else and spare travelers any inconvenience. as it happens, sequester law is clear in requiring the f.a.a. and most other agencies to cut their programs by an even amount. that law was foisted on the

public after republicans demanding spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in 2011. since then the party has rejected every offer to relays the sequester with a more sensible mix of cuts and revenue increases. mr. boehner is so proud of that strategy that he recently congratulated his party for sticking with the sequester and standing up to the present demands for tax increases. but drastic cuts in spending carry a heavy price. republicans certainly don't want voters they care about including business travelers and those who can afford to fly on vacation, to feel it. they to into claim that the $5 -- the $85 billion in this year's sequester can be covered. and of course to programs for the poor. they don't see any republican hashtags blaming the president for cutting housing voarches to

40,000 low-income families. these vouchers are given by cities to families on the brink of homelessness. there aren't any hungry tweets with the 70,000 head start slots which are forcing somees school stricts for deliberate these services by lottery. or the cuts to vista. volunteers in service to america. now, this is is not the editorial, mr. president, where your presiding officer's colleague, rockefeller, this wealthy man with this great name, as a young man went to west virginia and fell in love with the poor because he was a vista volunteer and never left. and he's now here in the united states senate. i'm sorry about that. or about the cuts to vista. volunteers with service to america, which is hurting the program that performs antipoverty work in many states. or the 11% cut in unemployment

benefits for millions of jobless workers. the voiceless people who are the most affected by these cuts can't afford high-priced lobbyists to get them an exception to the sequester the way the agriculture lobby was able to fend off a furlough to meat inspectors. and what was cut in order to keep those inspectors on the job? about $25 million from a program to provide free school breakfast . as bad as the sequester was it is being made worst by special interest demands for exceptions as well as politically motivated attempts to deflect responsibility for paying. the maneuvering shows the futility of trying to reduce the deficit with crude and arbitrary cuts. both senate democrats and the white house proposed budget plans that replace the sequester with a much better mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. on tuesday the senate majority leader harry reid proposed replacing the skefrt for five months with unspent money for

the wars in iraq and afghanistan. mr. president, that's what one of america's major newspapers said today that millions of people will have the opportunity to read. the sequester was designed as a tool to bring democrats and republicans together to reduce the deficit in a responsible way. by now we can all see that didn't work, and we can see that the sequester's cost far outweigh savings. as indicated in this editorial, this across-the-board cuts will cost this year 750,000 jobs, three-quarters of a million jobs. it will cost us investments in education that keep america competitive. it will cost millions of seniors, children, veterans and needy families the safety net that keeps them from descending into poverty. most of the headlines is focused on the delay the sequester will cost travelers across the

nation. but the sequester could also cost the country in humankind the cure for aids, parkinson's disease or cancer. these arbitrary cuts decimated funding for medical researchers seeking cures for diabetes, epilepsy, hundreds of other dangerous and debilitating diseases. the national institutes of health has delayed vital scientific projects and reduced the number of grants it awards to research scientists. thousands of research scientists will lose their jobs in the next few months and research projects that can't go on without adequate staffing will be canceled altogether. at ohio state university, known for more than a good football or basketball team, is one of the premier research centers in america. and at ohio state university grants for cancer research and infectious disease control are over with. at the university of cincinnati,

the forefront of research on strokes, a leading cause of death in the united states, scientists are bracing for cuts. vanderbilt university accepting fewer science graduate students because of funding reductions. at wright state university scientists researching pregnancy-related disorders such at a word i can't pronounce but spelled preeclampsia will lose their jobs. boston university laid off lab scientists and instituted hiring freezes. in grants to some of harvard university's most successful research scientists were not renewed because of the sequester. the research that i've talked about here today -- and it's only a few of them -- saves lives and saves misery. these scientists are looking for the next successful treatment for alzheimer's or the next drug to treat high cholesterol, but they might never get the chance

to complete their groundbreaking work or make their lifesaving discoveries because of these shortsighted cuts. mr. president, we've seen these devastating impacts on the arbitrary budget cuts. now it's time to stop them. be prepared, everybody, the house is now working on another bill because we have a debt ceiling coming soon. they're working on another bill to make it even more painful for the american people. last night i introduced a bill that would roll back the sequester for the rest of this year. just like the editorial indicated, it's something we should do. the bill would give democrats and republicans time to sit down at the negotiating table and work out an agreement to reduce the deficit in a balanced way and wouldn't add a penny to the deficit. it would use savings from winding down wars in afghanistan and iraq. before republicans dismiss these savings they should recall 235

republicans voted to use these funds to pay for the ryan republican budget. they didn't consider it a gimmick when it served their own purposes. we can stop the flight delays and the pink slips. we can stop the devastating cuts to programs that protect low-income children, homebound seniors and stop the cuts to medical research. but democrats can't do it without republicans' help. republicans overwhelmingly voted for painful arbitrary cuts and republicans bear responsibility for their consequence. remember, these cuts came about because with the debt ceiling, they refused to move on until these devastating cuts came about. and republicans bear responsibility for the consequences, from travel delays to cuts to violation research programs. now republicans must accept that they have an obligation to cooperate with us to help stop these draconian cuts and mitigate the consequences. mr. president, i ask consent that the leader time not count

against the hour that was set aside for morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: something truly remarkable happened in the senate last night. it was sort of late in the day, so for those who missed it, here's a little recap. late yesterday afternoon the majority leader handed to us a hastily crafted bill and then asked if we could pass it before anybody had seen it. apparently someone on the other side realized they had no good explanation for why they hadn't prevented delays we have seen in airports across the country this week, so they threw together a bill in a feeble attempt to cover for it.

it's really pretty embarrassing. it actually proposes to replace the president's sequester cuts with what's known around here as okay o.. -- as oko. let me provide an explanation provided by joe lieberman in a letter he signed with dr. coburn just last year. here's what senator lieberman said about oko. the funds allocated for oko, or war savings, are not real. and every member of congress knows this. the funds specified for overseas contingency operations in future budgets are a mere excess of what our nation's wars cost may be in the future. since it's likely future o.c.o. costs will be significantly less than the place holders in the congressional budget office estimates, it is the height of

fiscal irresponsibility to treat the difference between assumed and actual o.c.o. costs as a savings, as savings to be spent on other programs. let me read that last part again. it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility to treat the difference between the assumed and actual o.c.o. costs as a savings to be spent on other programs. this is from the man who was once the democratic nominee to be vice president. so there's bipartisan consensus that this thing we call o.c.o. is a fiscally irresponsible gimmick. a gimmick. the director of the concord coalition has called it -- quote -- "the mother of all gimmicks." end quote. the president of the committee for responsible federal budget called it -- quote -- "a glaring

gimmick." end quote. so whether o.c.o. is the mother of all gimmicks or just a glaring one, everybody other than the majority leader evidently agrees on one thing: it's the height, the height of fiscal irresponsibility. just as important as what the majority leader's proposal is however is what it isn't. it isn't a tax increase, and that's actually news. the majority leader is clearly ditching the president on this issue. as you may recall, the president has said he'd only consider replacing the sequester with a tax hike. and whatever you want to say about o.c.o., it's not a tax hike. it's borrowed money that will have to be repaid later. still it doesn't punish small businesses like the president's proposals would do, so this is in a sense big news. it represents a significant break from the president's favor approach on this issue.

with that said yesterday the president reflected the flexibility we proposed on the sequester for obvious political reasons. he wanted these cuts to be as painful as possible for folks across the country and to provide an excuse to raise taxes to turn them off. well, it's simply not working. even his own party is starting to abandon him on this issue. but the broader point is this, even without the flexibility we propose, he already has the flexibility he needs to make these cuts less painful. he's got it right now. he should exercise it. i also think we should all acknowledge that there's now a bipartisan agreement that tax hikes won't 0 be a replacement for the sequester. but the real solution is for the administration to accept the additional flexibility we'd like to give them to make these cuts in a smarter way and to get rid of wasteful spending first. surely in $3.6 trillion that we're spending this year, we can

find a way to reduce the spending we promised the american people we would reduce a year and a half ago when the budget control act was passed, and do that in a sensible way. that's what we've consistently said. there's more flexibility in the law right now. we would be happy to give the president even more to achieve the cuts that we promised the american people we would achieve. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: remember, ryan, congressman ryan, chairman of the budget committee, used these same -- want to use o.c.o. to -- i'm sorry. let's start over. congressman ryan used these

overseas contingency funds to balance his budget. mr. president, let's -- madam president, let's not even worry about for purposes of this conversation overseas contingency fund. let's just talk about the war in afghanistan. so what my friend is saying, it's okay to borrow money for the war in afghanistan, but not to use those same moneys to reduce the pain that's being felt all over america today? even joe scarborough on "morning joe," a former republican congressman from florida, said today he can't believe that the pains being felt all over america today, and no one is concerned about the war in afghanistan. does anyone think we're going to be fighting in the war in afghanistan five years from now, ten years from now? that's the money people are trying to protect. i hope not. for the sake of my children and grandchildren, i hope we're not still fighting in afghanistan

five or ten years from now. we're asking to take a few dollars of the $650 billion that's there -- billion dollars -- to relieve the pain we're feeling now for five months. that's it. i think it's really unfair that it would be so easy to turn the sequester around and allow us to do something for a long term to take care of this issue. but, no, the republicans like the pain. they like the pain. one republican senator came here last night and said, "why don't we take the money from the construction fund for airports." those create jobs. he said why don't we take it from essential air -- that dog has been here lots of time. that has been stripped bare.

as i indicated in my opening statement these remarks are supposed to be fair and equal. it po the same amount of money. republicans are saying same a. money but give more pain to someone else. balance it out. pain is too severe. it can't be balanced out. mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with equal time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half. the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i rise today as a member of both the senate appropriations committee on transportation and as a member of the senate

commerce committee to discuss what i believe is a shocking display of mismanagement and incompetence by the leadership of the department of transportation and the federal aviation administration. the federal aviation administration says that the sequester will result in as many as 6,700 delays per day, and to put this in context, in the worst weather day in 2012, we had 2,900 flight delays, so the f.a.a.'s projected 6,700 delays per day would more than double the worst day in 2012. to me, madam president, this is a disturbing evidence of both the department of transportation and the f.a.a.'s lack of planning leading up to what we all knew was going to take place, and in fact a law signed by the president -- we've known for a year this may happen; the

president signed it into law. we are now many months down the line ranged the f.a.a and the fg and says, by the way, we're going to implement this part of the sequester strags. -- sequestration. this across-the-board furlough is especially surprising that given previous announcements, their guiding principle would be implementing a plan that -- quote -- "maintains safety and minimizes the impact to the highest number of travelers." so announcing three days or so before they implement this plan that potentially results in as much as 6,0700 delays per day, that impacts the highest number of travelers? this is disingenuous.

it's mismanagement at its worst. it's incompetence at its worst. it's a failure to do what every agency has been required to do, and that is planning for this. and now that it has been in law for several months, there is no excuse for simply saying, oh, we didn't have time to put this in place, so it is what we're going to do. now, i voted against sequestration because it treated every program on an equal basis, regardless of its essential nature versus a lot of things that are done around here that consume a lot of taxpayers' money that even shouldn't be done but certainly don't rise to the level of essential functions of this federal government. clearly, keeping our skies safe and getting our passengers from point to point is an essential function. we need those air traffic controllers, and the plan that is put forth by the f.a.a. flies in the face of their own

judgment and their own statements in terms of what they needed to do. and instead of furloughing 47,000 employees and causing significant delays for travele travelers, they should have been seeking reductions elsewhere. we tried to give these essential agencies the flexibility necessary to do so. unfortunately, the president did not support that effort, and the majority party here in the senate did not support thatest. and, therefore, they have no reason to point their fingers over here arc here and say, co,s so terrible. the f.a.a. could have considered cutting back on the money it spend on consultants. in other words, those that have been hired to work at the f.a.a. need to spend -- can't do the job themselves, so theymade to

spend $541 million to hire outside consultants. and the $2.7 billion it spends on nonpersonnel costs. but instead of looking at how to better manage their own administration, they turn to furloughing up to 10% of the air traffic controllers, creating up to 6,700 delays per day. and then they said they hadn't had time to work this out. hadn't had time? they've had months since the law was signed. and how about the time now that people stand in airports waiting for three or four hours waiting to board their plane. and this is in good western. -- and this is in good weather. so that is a lame excuse the f.a.a. has put forward. i did not vote for the sequestration. as i said before, it was an inadequate way to deal with the necessary need to cut spnding

heemplet but let's cut -- to cut spending here. let's tock o focus on the essenl services and give them the opportunity to manage that. truly, f.a.a. and the department of transportation have not managed it. it is incompetence. congress was only informed just days ahead of time so it is difficult for us to respond. this kicked in to the surprise of airlines and congress. but, clearly, what we have learned is that despite a year of advance warning and then refusing to analyze all possible alternatives to minimize impacts to the traveling public, it appears -- it's hard to come to any other conclusion -- that this is a politically motivated decision to inflict as much pain on americans as possible in an effort to make the case that

sequestration never should have taken place in the first place. that at that 4% cut across the board is simply something they can't manage. asking them to do what they did in 2010 with the money that was allocated to them then, no, we can't do that now. we need this extra money and we need these hundreds of billions of dollars to continue to hire consultants and don't ask us to make the kinds of decisions that every business in this country has had to make over the last four or five years in this malaise of an economic growth following a recession that has taken place. don't ask us to do what every family has had to do. we're the government. we're the federal government. how dare you impose a 4% cut on what we do. we need to increase that every year because we need to keep hiring more and pay more consultants and we're not capable of managing. it's just shocking.

i hope the president will understand that, if he wants effective, efficient government, he'sing about to havgoing to goe effective, efficient government. he's going to have to do what every american has had to do in this time of slow economic recovery. so i think we ought to take a close look at the kind of decisions that have been made at the department of transportation, the lack of competent management and the mismanagement of taxpayers' money. this administration needs to step up to the plate and take some accountability. the president, as i said, created and signed into law the sequestration policy. his administration has phon knor more than 12 months that this was imminent and they were done mog to prepare effectively. madam president, our country is a long way from getting our

spending under control. so it is time the administration stops looking for excuses and starts managing its budget effectively. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. i rise to introduce the dependable air serviceagact. it is a simple solution to the air traffic controller furloughs. it is bipartisan legislation. i'd like to start out by thanking my cosporks the lead cosponsor, senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, but also senator john cornyn of text, senator rob portman of ohio, snorkely ayotte, senator ar risch of ida, and also senator jeanne shaheen

of new hampshire. it is bipartisan legislation. these are original cosponsors on the bill with me and we'll have more. we're talking to others. as i said, it is a very simple, straightforward solution, i believe, to this issue that we face of delays in our airports across the country due to the furloughs to air traffic controllers. what the bill does is it says to the administrator of the f.a.a., the federal aviation administration, that you can use dollars within your budget, move them around as you need to move them around, and that that's what you need to do is move dollars around within your budget so that you don't have to take $206 million out of the salary line of the air traffic controllers and you can decide what reduction you can make in those salaries and what level of furloughs you can make to air traffic controllers, but still maintain air service on an

on-time basis. so we have dependable, on-time air service acoughs this country for our -- across this country for our citizens. further, it provides that if for any reason that the f.a.a. administrator within his budget can't fully accomplish that, then the secretary of transportation, ray lahood, can work with them and utilize funds within the department of transportation budget. it provides the authority quite simply to move the dollars around within the d.o.t. -- department of transportation -- budget; gives the secretary that authority to make sure that they don't furlough more air traffic controllers than are needed to keep our flights on time to keep service, of course, safe and dependable so that the traveling public can know that their flights are going to be on time. the f.a.a. is furloughing --

they've a ons nod they're if you arelog about 1,500 air traffic controllers, which is about 10% of their total air traffic controller workforce. that's to save $206 million of the roughly $630 million that the f.a.a. is reducing under sequestration. now, they have the authority to move 2% of their operating budget without congressional approval, and they have authority to move up to 5% of their operational budget around with congressional approval, which means coming to the appropriations committee and getting approval to move you hav-- tomove up to that 5%. what the f.a.a. administrator has said is that that is not a sufficient amount to make the adjustment to he needs to make within the f.a.a. budget to address the furlough issue. so what we're saying -- or what this bill quite simply says is

it says, look, you can move the dollars us a need to within your budget. you have the flexibility. you have the authority to do that. do that and if for any reason that isn't sufficient, then secretary lahood can backstop that through the department of transportation dollars. now, just to put this into perspective, the total budget for the department of transportation is $72 billion -- $2 billion. -- $72 billion. and the total cuts at d.o.t. under sequestration is about $1 billion, $1 billion. the f.a.a. is taking $637 million of that reduction and of course the real issue that we're dealing with here in terms of flight delays is that about $206 million comes out of the air traffic controller salary line. so what we're saying is, look, make some reductions, find some

economies, do what you can within the air traffic controller line, just like you're doing across the board, and we should all be doing. the federal government has a huge deficit. we have a huge debt. we have got to find ways to reduce spending. so we all are in this together and we have to find ways on a sensible, commonsense basis that minimizeseminimizes the impact e public. we have to find savings. so find the savings that you can in terms of how many air traffic controllers you can truly furlough and then move the dollars that you have to make sure that we do not impact the traveling public. again, this is a bipartisan bill. this is a simple, straightforward solution to the issue. and we need to do it. we need do it. on monday, reports are that there were 1,200 flights across the country delayed.

and at airports in new york, in dallas, and in los angeles, some of those flights were up to several hours. what f.a.a. has indicated is that up to 6,700 flights a day out of the roughly 23,000-plus flights a day may be delayed because of these air traffic controller furloughs. look, there's no reason for that. there's no reason for that. and so i want the public to know we are putting forth a simple, straightforward bipartisan solution that still saves the dollars we need to save but gives the simple, straightforward flexibility that's necessary both within f.a.a. and d.o.t. if necessary to make the adjusts to make sure those tphraoeurts on -- flights are on time for the public. i called secretary lahood and said what do you think. he said fine. let's take to the airline association. we talked to the f.a.a.

administrators. i said what do you think? air traffic controllers union, what do you think? they all seemed to say hey, common sense, simple, straightforward; let's do it. let's do it. let's make sure we solve problems for the american public. they need to know that not only are their flights safe, they need to know that they're dependable. they need to know when they show up at the airport that airplane is going to leave when they expect it to go. it's important for their family, important for business, important for the economy of this country. and it's easily solved. so let's do it. i ask my colleagues to join me in this legislation. madam president, i thank you. i at this point yield the floor.

madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and now what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer madam president, i will be speaking shortly on matters of the immigration hearings. i just want to report to the

senate that since february the senate judiciary committee has had six hearings on immigration. we concluded the last one yesterday with the testimony of secretary janet napolitano. in all, we've had dozens of hearings, dozens of hearings; immigration in the last couple of years, but these six were especially important for the senate for our work in the judiciary committee. i have -- tomorrow we will put on the judiciary committee agenda the immigration under our normal practice. i've consulted with the ranking member.

we both agree on this. the bill will be put over until the first thursday that we come back from our early may break. this actually works well because i would assume that all members of the committee have read it. certainly we've had plenty of people who have testified, a dozen or more people who have testified have all read it and spoken about it, for or against it. but it will allow other senators who are not on the committee time to read the bill. once we start marking it up and voting on it in committee, it will be my intention to not go thursday to thursday, but to go every -- to go several days a week. i don't think -- i'm told that

people do not intend to delay for the sake of delay, and i hope that is so. and this is too important an issue. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask that a statement of mine

regarding jane kelly of iowa to the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit be included in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, to go back earlier this morning i spoke of the immigration hearings we've held and how important they are i believe not only to the senate, but to the country. it's been an extraordinary series of hearings. 42 witnesses spoke about the need for meaningful immigration reform. and i believe there is a chance to have real immigration reform, not bits and pieces around the corner, but the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that our great, wonderful country deserves, a country where each one of us are either children or grandchildren or

great-grandchildren of immigrants, a country where the major fortune 500 companies, a large percentage was begun by immigrants. we heard from dreamers, farmers, religious people, government officials, law enforcement advocates and others. we heard from those who oppose comprehensive immigration reform. we heard from those who support it. since bipartisan legislation was introduced a week ago we held three days of live hearings with 26 witnesses. i've worked with ranking member grassley to ensure all viewpoints were heard. in fact, no witness he suggested was denied the opportunity to appear and testify. i think we all realize, whether republicans or democrats, no matter how we may vote, we should have a clear record. i asked secretary napolitano to

return to testify the second time in a couple of months as she had february. she was scheduled last week with horrific circumstances in boston, of course we all understood, all of us, why she had to cancel that appearance, but she came yesterday and answered every single question everybody had. as i said earlier, when we meet tomorrow the right will be exercised under our rule to hold over the immigration reform bill for a week. again, i've discussed this with senator grassley, and i think we both agree that that's a wise thing to do to hold it over and give people that extra time. the following week we're not in session, but then we mark up the legislation in may. by that time the legislation and all the testimony will be publicly available for three

weeks. everybody will have had a chance to see it. we stream live all the hearings. all this is on the judiciary committee web site. and everybody will have had a chance to see it before we vote on it or consider any amendments offered to it. madam president, i ask consent that without this interrupting my speech, i be allowed to continue for five minutes more on this subject. officerster is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: the legislative proposal we are examining is result of a bipartisan compromise. i do not want to see comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to entrenched or partisan opposition, even though that may well be there. in the course of our hearings i quoted my dear friend of many years, ted kennedy, one of the lions of this body. in the sum of 2007 -- in the summer of 2007, he and i had

worked with former president george w. bush, worked very closely with him to have comprehensive legislation, but that immigration reform was being blocked in the senate. he spoke of our disappointing resolve. he said, "we are in the struggle for the long haul. today's defeat will not stand as we continue the battle we'll have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all around us. from jamestown to the irish of today's workers, people come to this country to seek for opportunity. they have sought for a chance to work hard and bring a better life to themselves understand their families. they come to our country with their hearts and minds full of hope." so i urge all senators to consider the recent testimony of jose vargas and the families that can be made more secure by enacting comprehensive immigration reform.

because of the dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. i hope that our history, our values, our decency can inspire us finally to take the action we should to reform our immigration laws. i know this is something my maternal grandparents, who were so proud to come to this country, speaking a different language, beginning a business, raising a family, seeing their grandson become a member of the united states senate. i know that's the way they would feel. i know ar that my wife's parent, who came to this country speaking a different language, having their children here in the united states, and stood with marcel and i and my parents when i was sworn into the united states senate, and they would think, watching their children and gran grandchildren, what a wonderful country this is.

this should be the wathis shoule who want to come here. we are a country that becomes greater and better because of the diversity brought to our shores, something from the beginning of this country to trade. let's make it possible. madam president, i ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: jane kelly of i would to be united states circuit judge for the eighth circuit of the executive office of the president, sylvia mathews bur well. the presiding officer: there will be 90 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. the time from 10:30 to

11:00 a.m. shall be for debate on calendar number 60 and the time from 11:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon shall be for debate on calendar number 64. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to speak about the nomination of jane kelly. i compliment the chairman for speaking now on immigration. i am not going 0 speak on immigration today probably, but i hope to be able to speak several times before the bill actually gets to the floor of the united states senate to inform my colleagues about my point of view on the whole issue of immigration, but i can say generally that we all know the immigration system is broken and legislation has to pass, and i hope we can get something that

has broad, bipartisan agreement. already the product before us is a product of bipartisanship because four democrats and four republicans have submitted a proposal for our committee to consider. i rise today, as i've said, in support of the monopoly nation of jane kelly tock u.s. circuit judge for the eighth circuit. the nominee before us today, ms. kelly, prisonsl presently ss an assistant public defender for the public federal defendingers's office for the northern district of iowa and she does that work in the cedar rapids office. she is well-regarded in my home state of iowa and so i'm pleased to support senator harkin's recommendation that he made to the president and subsequently the president's nomination of ms. kelly. she received her b.a.ssume cum

laude from duke university, 1987 after spending a few months in new zealand as a fulbright scholar, she went on to harvard law school, graduated there cum laude, earning her j.d. degree in 1991. upon graduation she served as law clerk, first for judge donald j. porter, u.s. district court, south dakota, and then for judge david r.h hanson. judge han son sen n sent us a ln support of judges kelly. he was a person that i have suggested to republican presidents both for district judge and then his long tenure on the eighth circuit and he has been a friend of mine as well a understand this is what now-retired judge hanson said in

support of ms. kelly. "she is a forthright woman of high integrity and honest characteristic." that's the end of the quote. then he went on to say, she has -- quote -- "exceptionally keen intellect," and then he concludes by saying, "she will be welcome addition to the court if confirmed." and i have no doubt that she will be confirmed. beginning in 1994, she has served as an assistant federal public defender in the northern district of iowa. she handled criminal matters for indigent defendants, has been responsible for trying a wide range of crimes. she became the supervising attorney in that cedar rapids office starting in 1999. ms. kelly is active in the bar and in district court matters.

she presently serves on the criminal justice act panel selection committee, the blue-ribbon panel for criminal cases, and she also serves on the facility securitie securitie district court. in 2004 her peers awarded her with the john adams award from the iowa association of criminal defense lawyers and drake university law school. she was unanimously chosen for this award, which recognizes individuals who show a commitment to the constitutional rights of criminal defense. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary gave her a unanimous qualified rating. so i congratulate ms. kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties. i'm pleased to support her confirmation and urge my

colleagues to join her. so this brings us to a point where, as of today, prior to this supposed approval of ms. kelly, we have a record in the united states senate of approving 185 judges throughout the 4.5 years of this presidency and the as soon as has only rejected two. that would be a 9:89 batting average for the president of the united states, with his nominees here in the united states senate. i have a fuller statement on the latter point i just made. i'll put that in the record. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i have 13 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, this morning the leaders, our democratic leader senator reid and republican leader senator mcconnell came to the floor and talked about sequestration. sequestration was something that was voted on with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 74-28. what it said was if congress on a bipartisan basis can't reach on budget reduction automatic spending cuts would go into place. unfortunately we did not reach that agreement. the spending cuts known as sequestration went in place and for the last month or so there's been speculation about will

anybody notice. people are starting to notice because across this country changes are taking place. for example, the federal aviation administration, they have been asked to cut about 5% from their budget, their operating budget. the salaries and such for employees. but because it's being done in a six-month period, it turns out to be a 10% cut. what it means ultimately, for example, one of the largest groups of employees in the f.a.a., the air traffic controllers are going to go without pay one out of every ten working days. with fewer air traffic controllers on the job and fewer people able to direct flights, we've noticed this week that flights are starting to slow down across the country. the f.a.a. estimates that some 6,800 flights a day will be delayed. and we've already started feeling that because air traffic controllers are being laid off because of the sequestration plan. putting that in perspective, the

worst day of last year because of weather, 3,000 flights were delayed. now on a regular daily basis, more than twice that number will be delayed because of the reduction in force of air traffic controllers because of this sequestration passed by congress. so senators are coming to the floor look for relief from that. and some are arguing on the other side that if the secretary of transportation just had the power to pick and choose within his department, he might be able to avoid these layoffs. i don't know if that's true or not. i will tell you that making these cuts at the end of a fiscal year is going to create hardship in a lot of different departments and agencies. i heard one of my colleagues from indiana say families face this all the time, and they have to make cutbacks, and i'm sure that's true. i noted my own family. but they also want to make certain if they can to get through tough periods without cutting into essential things:

prescription drugs, paying the mortgage, paying the utility bills. so we need to make this a thoughtful effort to avoid sequestration. and what the democratic leader, senator reid, has proposed is that we in fact defray -- defer, rather, this sequestration through the remainder of this fiscal year, until october 1. and he uses, to make up the cost, the overseas contingency fund. this was a fund created to pay for our wars overseas. and, thank goodness, iraq has been closed down as an active war and afghanistan is in the process. so there will be a surplus of money in this fund, some $600 billion, that otherwise had been anticipated to be spent. what the majority leader suggested is we take a small part of that and use it so we can avoid the impact to sequestration and go back to business as usual for the

remainder of this year. i happen to think sequestration is not a good policy. we need a better approach, a more thoughtful approach, and this will give us a chance. if we take funds that would otherwise be spent overseas on a war that, thank goodness, won't be there and instead use them at home to avoid some hardships we've just described. now we hear from the republican side that they don't think this is a viable alternative. they question whether there is an overseas contingency account. the irony is that when congressman paul ryan, the chairman of the house budget committee, included this same money in his republican budget, senator mcconnell, who is critical of it today, said back in april 2011 -- quote -- "today the chairman of the house budget committee, congressman paul ryan, is releasing a serious and detailed plan for getting our nation's fiscal house in order." end of quote. that serious plan, i might remind senator mcconnell, included just the funding that senator reid is asking for. so we're not asking for something that the republicans haven't already stood up and

embraced. we're saying instead let's deal with these national challenges and national emergencies and let's deal with them with the money that would otherwise be spent overseas. i'm hoping that this important issue, and of course the vote on the judge before us, once it's finished will leave us in a position to move to proceed to the underlying bill, the marketplace fairness act. this is a bill which senator enzi of wyoming and i have introduced in an effort to bring some equity and fairness when it comes to the collection of sales tax. currently in the united states internet retailers are not required by law to collect sales tax from sales in states that have a sales tax. that's about 45 or 46 states. the supreme court told us 20 years ago if remote sales, catalog sales and internet sales are to collect sales tax, congress has to pass the law to do it. that's what this is. we've been waiting 20 years.

and in the meantime, it's created some serious problems. first, internet retailers have an advantage over the bricks and mortar businesses in communities, an advantage because the internet retailers don't collect sales tax, so there's an automatic discount of whatever your state sales tax might be, 6%, 8%, 9%, 10%. this has caused many stores on main street and in the shopping malls to face competition that is unfair and sometimes forcing them into closing their businesses. so we're trying to level the playing field and say if you sell into a state like illinois, you will collect our sales tax on the sales to illinoisans buying your products. period. a debate has come up over the states that have no sales tax. let me make it clear, there is nothing in the marketplace fairness bill which will impose any new federal tax or any sales tax beyond what's currently in

the law in every state in the union. if your state -- oregon, montana, new hampshire, delaware, even alaska -- has no state sales tax, this bill won't change it. the residents of those states will not be compelled to pay a sales tax either over the counter or over the internet. but if a retailer that happens to be located in one of those states sells into a state with a sales tax will provide free of charge the software for them to collect the sales tax and remit it to the state where the purchase was made. there have been arguments that this is too complicated. there are 9,000 different taxing districts. i just have to say with software available today, what we're suggesting is something that's easily done without great cost. in fact, in this bill, we are requiring the states to provide software to the internet retailers free of charge so that they can collect the sales tax

as it's charged on each internet purchase. now there have been suggestions by some that we ought to carve out some states. we ought to say this new law will apply to some states but not to others. the states and their businesses have to volunteer to collect the sales tax for another state. i can't accept that. it is worse than the current situation. in the current situation the store on main street is competing with an internet retailer that doesn't collect a sales tax. this carveout approach would say that not only will we discriminate against those shops on main street, other internet retailers not in the state that's carved out have to collect sales tax, but those in the carveout state don't. so it makes an even more inequitable situation. i couldn't accept that. and i might say to the presiding officer, who has quite a history in this issue, having been one of the parties to the quill supreme court decision also makes the point that we ought to

take care. the standard that we set for the collection of sales tax is likely to be used in the next trade negotiation with a country that is trying to establish what their rules will be when it comes to competition in internet commerce. so if the collection of sales tax is required across the board in america, the same thing can be asked in our trade agreements with other countries. otherwise, we run the risk that the carveout becomes the exception that makes the rule in the next trade agreement, something that would be totally unfair to american companies sofplt that's -- so that's where we stand. what i said yesterday i will repeat now. at noon today we will move to proceed to this bill. i have urged my colleagues to come forward with amendments if they have them. if they don't, that's fine. but if they do, bring them forward. let's not delay this issue. we're in a week, the last week before a recess. members have plans for the weekend back in their states. and we want to make sure that they can keep those plans. that means that those who want

to amend this bill should step forward with their suggestions and immediately after the vote on the motion to proceed. bring them to the floor. don't wait. it's important that we do this on a regular basis, that we debate those amendments that need to be debated and vote on them, almost like a united states senate is supposed to be -- to do. that's what we face. and i would urge those who are holding back their amendments, who want to wait until thursday or friday, if you do that, we're likely to be in here beyond thursday and friday, and that's not fair to our colleagues. if you have a good amendment or any amendment for that matter, bring it to the floor. senator enzi, senator alexander and i and senator heitkamp will work to try to find a way to accommodate your amendment if it's consistent with the bill, or at least debate it and give you a vote if it's not. i think that's the best thing we can do. as i said, i think it's why we were elected, to debate these issues, to resolve them and to vote. so after noon a fair warning to

everyone: no excuses left. this bill has been on the calendar and available for amendments since last week, plenty of time to craft your amendment. bring it to the floor immediately after the vote on the motion to proceed and let's get down to business. let's do what we were elected to do and try to pass this bill or at least vote on this bill -- i hope pass it -- before we break for this recess. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i would ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to five minutes on the marketplace fairness act legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i would like to thank the distinguished whip from the majorit majority for hs leadership and mike enzi for his leadership and the presiding officer for her leadership. the marketplace fairness act is a good idea who's time has finally come. we have been waiting 20 years since the court decision to give

direction to our states so they can collect the sales and use taxes. this is not a new tax. it is in the a different tax. it is in the a tax we're applying to anybody. it is a mechanism for the collection of a tax that has been owed for over 20 years by people buying retail purchases in your states from people who sell out of state. i commend the leadership on the legislation. i hope everybody will bring their amendments to the floor. i don't know if there is any need for them. i hope we can send a clear message that we're prepared to let our local and state governments collect the tax that is owed to them and has been owed to them. my state of georgia's governor led a major tax reform package in my state that passed with only one dissenting vote. it reformed taxes on utilities for manufacturing to attract business to our state. it reformed our income tax code. it reformed a lot of our taxes

but it also passed legislation consistent with the marketplace fairness act, so we can finally collect a tax that has been owed for a long, long time in our state. as a real estate guy, as someone who used to lease retail space in shopping centers and on corners in cities and counties this our country, in our state, i hope what it's meant to those retailers. what has happened is they've become show rooms and servicing agents for an offsite seller. customers in our community will go to the retail store, they will a look at the products, go home and go on the internet, buy the product on the internet and if something goes wrong with it, they'll go back to the store to see if they can get it fixed. the store never gets a profit. it adds pressure on the rest of the tax system. think about this. if you are a local community that gets most of your revenue from a local, special purpose sales tax and that tax goes down, thought because people aren't paying it, but because it

is not being collected, what happens? the pressure on the ad vair lore emtax goes up. the there is more pressure on the ad lorem tax they pay. we are famous in washington for unfunded mandates to local governments, whether it is idea or education or whatever it might be. it is time we gave our local governments the chance to collect a -- a mandate to collect a tax that is owed to them. lastly, for my state of georgia, we have a 4% sales and use tax that goes to our state. we have special-purpose, local option sales taxes that are referendum taxes levied by local communities to finance school construction and other opportunities of the and we have a metropolitan rapid transit authority in georgia which in 1974 was ceded a with th a 1% t.

it is not fair to deny the states and entities the ability to collect a tax that is owed and it is only right that after 20 years of getting direction from the courts as to what to do that this senate and this congress and our country said to our states we're going it give a mandate for you to collect the taxes that are owed to you. we're going take the pressure on the local retailer. we're going to level the playing field. we're not adding a tax to anyone. we're adding opportunity to everyone. and i comments senator durbin, the presiding officer, senator alexander and senator enzi for their tireless leadership and i urge all the members of the senate to do what we've done on the motion to proceed, and what we did on the amendment on the budget. let's give an overwhelming ratification of the marketplace fairness act. i yield back. mr. carper: i just want to join you. this is one we agree on. another one we agree on. i was privileged to be governor of delaware for eight years and now to serve here with you and our colleagues the last 1 2

years. delaware is one of those half dozen states that doesn't have a sales tax. i think most of these states that don't have a sales tax are not supportive of this bill. i am. i may be out of step. maybe not. but a month or so after i became governor, we had all of these signs -- you come into a state, whether it says welcome to georgia, north dakota, delaware -- we had a sign that said welcome to delaware. and we had the name of the gone. i said why don't we take down the name of the governor and put something else up. what we put up was "home of tax-free shopping. " in our little state we have borders contiguous with new jersey with pennsylvania to with maryland. they have sales taxes. a lot of people in those states co many to delaware to shop, to buy things. and help to fuel our economics ow retailer economy and help fuel our tourism economy as

well. when people say to me, why would you, former governor, why would you support this bill? well, one, i think there is a an equity issue. the idea that the brick-and-mortar merchants are there collecting a sales tax in those 45 states that have a sales tax and help support the community and governments and services that are provided to local and the states across america. and you've got the folks that are selling things over the internet to people who live in those states but not collecting a sales tax, thought being part -- really part of the solution necessarily. and the other thing, you know as well as i do, the folks of the brick-and-mortar merchants, people come to their stores pretty regularly and say, how would you like to support the little league? how would you like to help support the boy scouts and girl scouts? how would you like to support this function all the time. and they do of the and they dot and mean while the folks they

are competing with on internet sales, they are not supporting those kinds of activities. so there is an equity condition here. i see value in this as a guy who comes from a state without a sales tax. i want more people from other states, including the three around you to come and buy things in my state. and if they can buy those things over the internet and not pay a sales tax, then why would they come to delaware? but if thoug they have to pay as tax, it is going to be collected by the internet provider, they might come to delaware and shop. mr. isakson: i appreciate the distinguished former governor's leadership and knowing him as well as i do, he is a states' rights advocate. this is a states' right. we are here to protect the rights of our states. mr. carper: i would be amiss if i didn't say this. i know my colleague has to leave. but in my first term as governor, i never heard of mike enzi. who is this mike enzi guy?

he is a great guy. former mayor of gillette, wyoming. he has been pushing this forever. mike lea leavitt, former governf utah, i'll give a shout out tow him and mike enzi. mike enzi doesn't give up. and i know you don't. so thank you. madam president, i'd -- i'd like to speak today a bit if i can on the nomination of sylvia mathews burrwell, whose nominee neighs has come through our committee. her nomineeuation was reported out unanimously a week or so by our committee and unanimously the same day by the budget committee. and the nomination comes at a critical time not just for this administration -- i think at a critical time for our country. we are wrestling with this larges budget deficit. we know that there are management challenges and when you say o.m.b., it is office of

management and budget. who is confirmed in this position is expected to ride herd, to oversee a group of team, a good team, that will focus on budget, thousand continue to rein in our budget deficit and bring it back to a more sustainable fiscal position for us and what is do we need to do on the management side to help hastening that day? we have across the federal government in this administration -- we had it in the bush administration, the last bush administration as well -- something i call executive branch swiss cheese. we've too many positions, senior positions in this administration. we had a uminfor number of theme last position. in some cases the administration has not vetted, nominated, and submitted names us to. in some conveyings we're not moving them very quickly thuns they have. there is a shared responsibility here.

the administration -- in this case we haven't had a confirmed director of o.m.b. for about a year since jack lew left to become secretary of the treasury. we've gone about a year without an o.m.b. director. and jeff zion who has been responsible for being acting director also, if you will, the -- the o in o.m.b., the managementing director for o.m. beer, -- the senior leadership time at o.m.b. is pretty much -- that's been jeff zions. we're grateful to him. he may have other things that he wants to do with his life. we need to put somebody good to head up o.m.b. and surround that person with a first-rate team. i pledge to do that. and i just want to say to my

colleagues, democrat and republican here in the senate, on our committee, homeland security and government affairs committee, on the budget committee, just a big thank you for getting this nomination. once we had it in hand, to move it quickly, vetting, staff hearings. thanks to the leadership, democrat and republican, for making that possible. who is this person that the president has nominated? well, she -- she u used to be a mathews, with one "t." and a pretty remarkable person. for someone who was raised and grew up in west virginia, where i lived when i was four years oacialtiond not far from where sylvia grew up. i told her at her confirmation hearing, what is the likelihood that the president would nominate as the director of o.m.b., one of the most powerful positions in any administration,

a born who was born close to where i learned to fish as a little boy and she is extraordinary. she is extraordinary. as the president knows, sylvia burwell didn't go off to some fancy, private school. she wint went to hinton high school. i was kidding her and asked her what was her mascot. she said we were the bobcats. we had at the confirmation hearing a umin of colleagues who were fellow bobquats, played on the basketball team with her. she is a real person. she has wonderful interpersonal skills. i talked -- when the president nominated her, i called -- i found out that she used to work in the second clinton administration. after hin13ton high school, i like too say she wouldn't get into delaware, but she had to go

to harvard and became a rhodes scholar over in england. did some work in the clinton-gore campaign and end up working a second term of the administration. what did she do? she was the chief of staff to bob rubin, one of the leaders of the economic leadership team in the clinton administration. she was a deputy to chief of staff erskine bowles. and for the last two or years of the clinton administration she was deputy o.m.b. director. so -- and she had a pretty good experience there. she finished up there. where did she 0 go from there she ended up working for mackenzie and company, one of the top consulting firms in the world. she helped stand up the bill and linda gates foundation and has helped run the walmart foundation. what the, what the, what great cree hedentials. i said tell me about this sylvia burwell who's been nominated to

head o.m.b. towed me a great story. here's the setting. we're in the oval office of the president. bob ruben, sylvia mathews and the president is having a conversation. erskine notices sylvia and ruben looks at the note and answers the president's requests to great effect. brilliant response. the president was kind of looking at the response. man, i have broken a code here on ruben. he is not that smart. it is sylvia. if inside sylvia, wooing for me, they had think i was as smart as ruben. i was going to talk to bruce reed about him. he and i worked with a bunch of other people on welfare reform,

great guy and he's vice president biden's chief of staff today. i asked him to tell me some more about sylvia. she is a real person. she's just a good person. we've all heard the term "good guy." i don't know how you say that about a woman, "good gal" or whatever. but if you were a man, you say really good guy. people just like her. and that's pretty helpful around here. the other thing, incredibly bright. incredibly bright. able to juggle a whole lot of things at the same time. somehow along the way she's gotten married, lucky guy named steven. they have two young kids and somehow they manage to keep all the balls in the air and raise their family and having these careers. i asked erskine and bruce, what is she really like? just a really good person. it would -- and good srafplts i talked about her values.

it's the kind of thing you want to be encouraged to hear. very bright. the other thing they said about her is this: she has a great ability to get things done. we all know people that are a good guy or gal, people who are arguably bright but they're not able to get things done. we need somebody in this position who is able to lead a team that gets things done. we have a huge deficit, about $800 billion -- coming down but still too big. we have all kinds of g.a.o. issued they raised for us in their list of things that are problematic. g.a.o. has given us a whole big report on duplication in the federal government. there is a huge to-do list. part of it is our jurisdiction in our committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. that is a responsibility we share with the administration and with other branches of our government. we need somebody who is good at multitasking and who can get

things done. i think if we help put the right team around here, we'll get a lot done. i'll close, if i could, with this. i've never met her parents, but obviously i think she has at least one sibling. when i asked how did she turn out this way, sylvia gives the credit to her parents. i think most of us probably do for our success in our life. although we had a great witness before the finance committee hearing yesterday, antoine fisher, coming up through the foster care system in his home state. but she gives a lot of credit to her parents. obviously they're doing something right and maybe even in harvard or oxford, england. she is a very humble person. she's the real deal. and we're lucky she's willing to take this on. i commend the president on

nominating her. i want to thank her husband and her family for their willingness to share her. i hope she gets a unanimous vote here today. she ought to. the other thing i want to say today is this. the president took out some folks for dinner last night. i don't know if our presiding officer was one of them. my guess is she was. i'll talk to her later about how it went. i commend the president for reaching out to republicans and to democrats, senators and representatives, the kind of thing you've got to do if you want to get things done. as president you've got a million people pulling on you, 300 million pulling on you and folks from around the world pulling on you and it's hard to focus on building or rebuilding relationships here. it is absolutely necessary. i was talking with angus king the other day, angus, now our colleague here in the, a great addition, used to be governor of maine. we were comparing notes how we

work with the legislature. we actually did pretty well together. one of the keys, not my idea but an idea that i think started with pete dupont when he was governor years ago, also mike hassle when he was governor and by me, every tuesday when the legislature is in session in delaware, they are usually in session tuesday, wednesday and thursday, most weeks between january and june but i would have lunch with the legislative leaders, democrats and republicans from the house and the senate. we would have somebody from my administration and my staff, and we would have lunch together. sometimes we would talk about issues. sometimes we would talk about sports or whatever else was the topic of the day. we would always have lunch together. we did it week after week, month after month year after year. you get to know people and get a sense of trust. one of the keys for our success in delaware is we sort of like

each other. democrats and republicans, we work together. we govern from the center. the -- angus had a similar story. only they didn't do lunch together with the legislative leadership. they did breakfast together in maine. they did it every week, every month every year for the eight years he was governor. the president is doing something like that now. it is great. i urge him to keep it up. i close with this. the presiding officer heard me say this before. the president heard me say this as well, probably more times than he wants to remember. if we're serious about tkrurbgs three things we -- serious about deficit reduction, three things we need to do. go back to the clinton administration, erskine bowles with sylvia's help and others put together -- it they put

together a deficit reduction plan 50% revenue. they put together a balanced budget plan, we ended up with four balanced budgets the last four years of the clinton administration and it was 50% deficit reduction on the spending side, 50% on the revenue side. those four years, if you look at federal revenues as a percentage of g.d.p., they range anywhere from 19.5% to 20.5%. that was the range, 19.5% to 20.5%. federal revenues is a percentage of g.d.p.. the average was about 20%. look at last year, big budget deficit. federal revenues as a percentage of g.d.p. right around 16%. spending as a percentage of g.d.p. last year i think was around 23% or so. that gap between 16% revenues as a percent of g.d.p., spending about 23% -- spending is coming down and the revenues are going up under the fiscal cliff deal but we'll still have a

substantial deficit. we need to do something more. something more we need to do -- about 20% we were in the clinton administration, 20% of revenues as a percentage of g.d.p.. the second thing we need to do is entitlement reform. i'll use the president's words. i think he's been courageous because not everybody in our party agrees with him on this. we need to reform the entitlement programs in ways that save money. don't savage old people or poor people. and preserve these programs for the long haul. i remember i spoke to, back at ohio state where i did n.i.h. undergrad a million -- where i did my undergrad a million years. i had a chance to talk to fraternity brothers from four different states, including your state, madam president, that were there for a weekend conference, leadership conference. i talked to them about leadership. i also talked to them about making tough decisions haoupbd we use our -- and how we use our values to make those tough decisions.

i asked those guys from across those eight states, i said how many of you think you'll someday receive a social security check? not one hand went up. i said how many think you might be eligible for medicare when you're 65? not one hand. i want to make sure that they do. not that they need it. i want to make sure our sons, our daughters, our grandsons, our granddaughters, our nieces and nephews, i want to make sure those programs will be there for them. the president gets that. i understand we can't keep going business as usual. we'll run out of money in the medicare trust fund by 2024. we're starting to run out of money, inability to pay for social security checks fully by 2030. first we need revenue. second we need entitlement reform that is true to matthew 25, looking out for the least of

these. looking out for the least of these thing. third thing, we put together, more than a dozen democrats and republicans on this committee who are -- rabid is probably the wrong word but i'll use it. rabid about waste. r-a-b-i-d about waste. what we believe, as do i, everything we do as human beings, we can do better. i think that's true of all of us and it's true of federal programs. everything we do, we can do better. and the challenge for us is to leverage one committee working with our colleagues in the senate and the house, working with g.a.o., government accountability office, working with o.m.b., working with inspector generals across the federal government, working with outside groups like citizens against government waste and a bunch of folks to say this is like an all hands on deck deal and a shared responsibility as welling. and to the extent that we have

the ability to work with all those partners i just mentioned, we'll get more done and we'll leverage the effect of this in our committee but most importantly we'll continue to reduce the budget deficit. three things -- in closing, three things: additional revenues, let's do it in a smart way. we need to reform the entitlement programs in ways that don't savage old people or poor people. and we need to look at every nook and cranny of the federal government to see how we get a better result with less money. find out what works and do more of that. find out what doesn't work and do less of that. wherever we're duplicating responsibilities and activities, see how we can maybe do less of that. madam khaeurbgs i don't usually get to talk this long but i'm -- madam chair, i don't usually get to talk this long but i'm wound up today, excited on this nomination, sylvia mathews burwell has the potential of being a terrific o.m.b.

director. one of the keys for doing that is we've got to get her confirmed here today. i think we will. then we've got to move promptly. the president has to give us a good name. he's given us one good name to be part of her team if she is confirmed. the president needs to send somebody not just for deputy o.m.b. director, not just deputy at o.m.b. for management, the new cass sunstein to work the regulation side, but all the above. to get good names, we have obligation to vet them quickly, promptly. get them confirmed and in their place so they can do their job. $800 billion-some deficit, we've got work to do and we need a good leadership team to do that. madam president, i don't see anybody standing around to chew up the rest of this time, which is probably a good thing. maybe we'll get a good vote on this nomination. i'm pleased to be here to put in a good word for sylvia and say

to her husband, her family, thanks for sharing her. to her parents, thanks for raising her. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i ask that the quorum call be dismissed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise today to urge the senate to confirm the nomination of sylvia mathews burwell to be director of the office of management and budget. i do so with great pride because sylvia burwell is from my home state of west virginia and i have been dear friends with her family for a long, long time. her patients have been -- parents have been community leaders in hinton, west virginia, for over half a century. her father dr. william mathews is a long time opt tom

terrorist. her mother previously served as the mayor of hinton as well as in a number of other public service positions, and i worked with sylvia for many, many years as mayor when i was governor of the state and she was quite competent, including eight years on the state board of education when she served as president of the board of education. madam president, if you want to know sylvia, you should look at her small hometown of hinton, west virginia, and the surrounding summers county that she grew up in because that is her grounding. it is pure americana. a one-time railroad boom town woven into the mountains of appalachia. the downtown historic district, 200 buildings including churches, storefronts and private residences is an architectural gem of american gothic, classical, victorian and greek revival. i tell you, madam president, it's a movie just waiting to happen. hinton is the ideal example of small-town west virginia and probably small-town america. it only has 2,600 residents. that's a pretty large town for west virginia and probably north dakota also, madam president.

it's nestled into a lush green valley on the banks of the new river surrounded by the towering majestic mountains and forests of summers county, one of the most beautiful counties in west virginia. new river is one of the oldest rivers in the world. it flows south to north which may be due to the fact that it was formed long before the appalachian mountains. this is a special place sylvia mathews burwell calls home, a showcase for the best of west virginia and america. the beauty, the outdoors and the people are warm and welcoming. sylvia's humble. she is hard working and has spent most of her life helping hard-working families everywhere achieve the american dream her greek immigrant grandparents found in this country. she went off to harvard, was a rhodes scholar and has traveled the world over, but she has never lost touch with her west virginia roots and the ties that bind us together. no matter where she is, one day

each week like clock work sylvia is on the phone with the two best friends she made in the first grade in hinton. think about it. that's who we are. that is the heart and soul of west virginia, friends and family, but make no mistake, madam president. i am supporting sylvia's nomination, not because she is from west virginia which makes it all that much sweeter, but because she embodies the best of our state and our country. in west virginia, we judge people by their deeds as much as their words and sylvia has already accomplished so much in her life, the public service and philanthropy she has been involved with. sylvia mathews burwell is an exceptional choice to lead the office of management and budget, especially in the aftermath of sequestration, which is what you know we're going through now, madam president, and so many of our colleagues detailed on the senate floor this past week and we're still discussing it. i say that because sylvia served

as deputy director of office of management and budget, which now she will become director of, from 1998-2001, which was our last era. think about it, the last time of fiscal responsibility when balanced deficit reduction gave us balanced federal budgets. the fiscal plan she and erskine bowles that she worked with put together had we followed it, had we followed it to this day had not changed would have erased our national debt completely by now. can you believe that? we would have been totally out of debt as a nation if we would have followed the plan that was put forth back in 1996, 1997, 1998 and followed through after 2001. sylvia was a key part of the clinton white house team that reached across the aisle, negotiated those balanced budgets with the republican congress. and if you look closely at the numbers, you can see what an accomplishment it was to fix our finances in the 1990's. prior to 1993 when sylvia joined

the clinton administration, the united states had failed, had failed to balance its budget for 23 years, 23 years. by 1992, spending had risen to historic highs. i think we all know that story. and revenues had reached near historic lows, and we know that one, too. it's exactly the limit we're in right now compared to the size of the economy. in 1992, the federal budget deficit topped out at $290 billion. $290 billion. i think we're close to $17 trillion right now. by the time sylvia left the clinton white house and went to the office of management and budget in 1998 as the deputy, the wheels in motion of a sustainable balanced budget for years to come, she put those wheels. spending had shrunk drastically and revenues were soaring to historic highs. thanks to a thriving u.s. economy and reasonable tax policies, that ensured both corporations and wealthy

individuals paid their fair share. in 1998, -- the presiding officer: the time for the majority has expired. mr. manchin: can i ask for more time? i ask for permission to speak up to five minutes. i'm sorry. at that time i want to be able to turn over to the senator from iowa. i'll finish up in just a few minutes. i'm just about done. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: in 1998, sylvia's last year in the white house and first year as o.m.b., the federal budget had a $69 billion surplus, the first surplus in a generation. sylvia has been out of the government for the last 12 years but i am confident she will bring a fresh perspective to the fiscal debates we'll be having over the next few years. after serving in high-profile leadership positions, she has been well, well balanced and she has done with the bill and

melinda gates foundation, she has been their top person. i am just confident that with sylvia coming back into the reins, i would hope that all of my colleagues on the republican side, all of my colleagues on the democrat side will look at sylvia as part of america, part of this great country, a product of who we are, and she will do a great job because she has a track record of already doing it. with that, i would encourage all of my colleagues to please vote in support of sylvia mathews burwell. thank you, madam chairman. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i was honored to recommend to the president that he nominate jane kelly to serve as a judge on the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit, and today i encourage my colleagues to vote for her confirmation which will be the first vote at noon. let me begin by thanking senator leahy and his staff for their hard work in advancing miss kelly's nomination in such a timely manner. i also thank my senior colleague from iowa, senator grassley, for

his invaluable support and assistance. for all the years that we have served together, senator grassley and i have cooperated in a spirit of goodwill on judicial nominations in our state, and i am grateful that that tradition has continued. madam president, jane kelly possesses all of the qualifications necessary to assume the responsibilities of a federal appellate judge. before recommending miss kelly to the president, i reviewed a very strong field of candidates for this position. she stood out as a person of truly outstanding intellect and character with a reputation as an extremely talented lawyer with a deep sense of compassion and fairness. not surprisingly, she enjoys a wide bipartisan support from the iowa legal community. judge michael malloy, who was nominated by president george w. bush and whose seat on the eighth circuit miss kelly is nominated to fill said that miss kelly -- quote -- "is very intelligent and thoughtful."

judge david hansen, who was president george h.w. bush's nominee to serve on the eighth circuit and for whom miss kelly clerked, said that -- quote -- "she is a forthright woman of high integrity and of honest character who will be a welcomed addition to the court." end quote. and i might point out just for the record both of those nominees under republican presidents i was proud to support myself under the leadership of senator grassley. federal district court judge stephanie rose noted kelly "has a great blend of personality skills and common sense to make a great lawyer and a judge." the american bar association gave her a unanimous qualified rating. ms. kelly is a credit to all of us who have chosen to be public servants. she earned her bachelor's degree from duke, served as a fulbright scholar, received her j.d. from harvard law school. after law school she was law

clerk to judge donald porter of the district court of south dakota, and judge david hanson of iowa on the eighth circuit. she could easily have commanded a big salary with a top law firm but instead for over 0 years has opted for public service and long hours as a public defender. we are fortunate she seeks to continue her public service to iowa and our nation by serving as a federal judge. madam president, let me conclude with two additional notes about ms. kelly's nomination. first if confirmed she will only be the second female judge in the history of the eighth circuit court of appeals, a court established in 1891. while 56 men have sat on that court to date there has only been one woman, diana murphy from minnesota. secondly, president obama has nominated approximately 100 former prosecutors to the federal bench including one that i recommended, former u.s.

attorney stephanie rose, to the southern district of iowa. among recent presidents that is the highest percentage of former prosecutors to be nominated to the federal bench. these are all outstanding attorneys and dedicated public servants. but as judge molloy recently noted with respect to ms. kelly "it will be good to have somebody from the public defender realm on the federal bench." ms. kelly has served more than 20 years in the federal defender's office, where she has argued hundreds of cases on behalf of indigent clients. she has fought tirelessly to ensure the rights of all are protected and she has worked to give meaning to the phrase above the supreme court, "equal injured under law." this is a quitally important perspective she will bring to the court. as an aside, it strikes me as especially fitting that ms. kelly, a career public defender, has been nominated for the federal bench this year

as we observe the 50th anniversary of gideon v. wainwright. as we all know that landmark decision recognized every person accused of a crime no matter how poor is guaranteed the right to counsel. at its core, gideon is the promise of justice for all including our most vulnerable citizens. this is an ideal to which ms. kelly has dedicated her entire legal career. so, madam president, jane kelly is superbly qualified to serve as united states court of appeals judge for the eighth circuit. i urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination. and her confirmation. with that, madam president, i yield the floor, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i wanted to share a few remarks on the nomination of sylvia mathews burwell to be the director of office of management and budget. i suspects she'll be confirmed moment the chairman, she was raised in a small town in west virginia, seems to have to good west virginia values. she's smart, able, and has a winning personality for sure. but this is perhaps properly utilized the toughest, most important job in the united states government. the primary responsibility of o.m.b. is to assist the president in overseeing the preparation of the budget, but also to help formulate spending plans, to deal with agency programs, policies, and positions, and setting funding priorities to make tough choices that are necessary to keep our

financial house in order. it's the tough position to be. the president, you know, we could have elected a president, governor romney, was himself a manager, a tough, proven executive. that was his strength. president obama's strength is in message and traveling the country and advocating his positions, leaving it even more critically important than normal, it would seem to me, to have a very strong office of management and budget leader. and ms. burwell certainly seems to have the integrity to do the job, but i am worried about her lack of experience. she served as the director of the -- one of the parts of the bill and melinda gates foundation, she served as head of the wal-mart charitable

foundation, and she served in the office -- the office of management and budget for a time and chief of staff, i believe, to the secretary of the treasury at the national -- and at the national economic council. but her most recent experience has not been directly in trying to rein in a government hats out of control. -- that's out of control. the web site of o.m.b. says as part of its mission "it reports directly to the president and helps a wide variety of executive departments and agencies across the government to implement the commitments and priorities of the president." and so it's a big job. so i would say that in failing to nominate someone like a proven executive, a proven governor, a former cabinet

member who can look these cabinet members in the eye and say no, secretary such and such, this is not going to be within our budget, this isn't within our plans, you'll have to see if you can't do this cheaper, we've got a nominee who is really going to have to rise to the occasion to be able to defend common sense in spending because our cabinet people get ideas and visions. they want to do all kinds of things, particularly in this administration. and sometimes you've got to say we don't have the money. we'd like to do that, but we do not have the money. now, the president's budgets that o.m.b. is required to produce, that he has submitted thus far not have been impressive. that's an understatement. or they not have exemplified the leadership and management that we would expect from a president. for instance the 2013 budget, the one that was introduced last

year, increased spending by $1.5 trillion above the budget control act spending levels we agreed to. and that's not good. the president signed the budget control act. it limited spending from increasing from $37 trillion at current law base line, i was going to $47 trillion, the budget control act reduced the increase to $45 trillion instead of going up to $47 trillion. it imposed the -- the 2011 budget proposed budgets of $2.7 trillion above the agreed-upon baseline, and so we had a good number of problems with that budget. of course, the budgets -- those two budgets failed in the

senate, 99-0 and 97-0, got not a single vote. and it didn't -- they didn't get a single vote in the house. because they were irresponsible budgets. so ms. burwell will be replacing the o.m.b. director. madam president, i see my colleague and able chair of the budget committee here. i thought i had ten minutes, but -- what is the agreement at this point? the presiding officer: all the time expires in 30 seconds. all time remaining under republican control. mr. sessions: the republican time is expiring? i would just say i intend to support ms. burwell's nomination and we're going to give her a chance. i hope she'll rise to the occasion. i think she has the ability. she certainly is a delightful person to meet with and will yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs.ur